Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 18:
Structure of Court's Analysis In:
Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578
1. Did Landlord owe a duty? Collections Inc. v. Swords, supra, 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 846; see, e.g. Pierce v. Nash (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 606, 614
REMEDIES:
Constructive Eviction:
5) Remedies for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. [11] An interference by the landlord, or by someone claiming under the landlord (Lee v. Placer Title Co., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 512), "by which the tenant is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises amounts to a constructive eviction if the tenant so elects and surrenders possession, and the tenant will not be liable for rentals for the portion of the term following his eviction. [Citations.]" (Kulawitz v. Pacific etc. Paper Co. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 664, 670.) [Emphasis mine]
END Andrews Case Excerpts
Posted by Page Administrator at 5:34 AM No comments:
THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2007
CALIFORNIA CASES, STATUTES & ORDINANCES
Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578
Sierad v. Lilly, 204 Cal.App.2d 770
Peterson v. Superior Court (Banque Paribas) (1995)
10 Cal.4th 1185, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 836
The implied warranty recognizes the realities of the modern landlord tenant relationship and imposes upon the landlord the duty to maintain a rented dwelling in a habitable condition throughout the term of the
IMPLIED DUTY:
Line 41 ⟶ 57:
(3) Substantial interference is required to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment.
[9] Minor inconveniences and annoyances are not actionable breaches of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. To be actionable, the landlord's act or omission must substantially interfere with a tenant's right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy. (Petroleum lease.
Petroleum Collections Inc. v. Swords , 48 Cal.App.3d 841, 846
Green v. Superior Court, [(1974)] 10 Cal.3d 616
NOTE:
Commercial Lease Law applies to residential leases: See Andrews, Footnote 8:
FN 8. Because the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is present in every lease in the absence of language to the contrary (Petroleum Collections, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 846), the cited cases, although involving commercial tenants, are equally applicable to residential tenancies.
STATUTES AND CODES:
California Civil Code sect 1927
California Civil Code §§ 1925-1954 (Section 1941)
1961-1962.7,
1995.010-1997.270
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
(Most all cities in California. Look for Noise Ordinance of town in your County for fact pattern)
Encinitas noise control ordinance
[Suggest you include in fact pattern the loud tenant was cited numerous times for violating city ordinance. Cite the ordinnace. Include in fact pattern that tenant appellant made landlord aware of violations.]
OTHER CASES AND EXCERPTS:
CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION:
Sierad v. Lilly, 204 Cal.App.2d 770
Constructive Eviction
Defendant first contends that there was no evidence of any constructive eviction by defendant. [1, 2] Defendant correctly states the rule of constructive eviction as follows:
"It is settled, however, that there need not be actual dispossession of the tenant from the leased premises. An eviction may be actual, as where there is a physical expulsion, or it may be constructive as where, though amounting to an eviction at law, the tenant is not deprived of actual occupancy. Any disturbance of a tenant's possession by a landlord or by someone acting under his authority, whereby the premises are rendered unfit for occupancy for the purpose for which they are demised, or the tenant is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, amounts to a constructive eviction." (Giraud v. Milovich, 29 Cal.App.2d 543, 547 [1] [85 P.2d 182].) See also Kulawitz v. Pacific etc. Paper Co., 25 Cal.2d 664, 670 [5] [155 P.2d 24]; Lindenberg v. MacDonald, 34 Cal.2d 678, 690 [214 P.2d 5, 14 A.L.R.2d 1436]; Pierce v. Nash, 126 Cal.App.2d 606, 612 [272 P.2d 938].)
EXAMPLE OF CASES LOST BY TENANT:
(Fact patterns are critical)
Parade Parkside Assoc. LP v Elisa Holland
FINAL THOUGHT: CONTRACT LAW ELEMENT OF CASE?
Leases come under both real property law, as well as contract law. (they are a hybrid combination) Would the appellant tenant have a case under breach of contract? (Maybe that would depend on the terms and conditions stated in the lease (contract) . Possible fact pattern.
Posted by Page Administrator at 5:01 AM No comments:
Home
---------------------------------------------------
| |||